From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5255 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2006 08:59:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 5245 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Nov 2006 08:59:42 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 08:59:33 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (p202-124-125-243.snap.net.nz [202.124.125.243]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3951F3DA653; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:00:18 +1300 (NZDT) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 500) id 91C53BE452; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:55:13 +1300 (NZDT) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17773.19183.730566.545997@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 08:59:00 -0000 To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Variable objects laziness X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.0.91.6 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-11/txt/msg00371.txt.bz2 > > With the new changes to varobj.c, -var-assign doesn't work for references. > This is embarrassing. However, it also validates my claim that we should a > single invariant-preserving function to assign new value. This crash > happens, for all appearances, because varobj_set_value directly sets new > value. > I've checked in the attached, that fixes the crash, and causes no > regressions. I find this way works well but it's not how things are done here. You need to post the patch first and get approval from an appropriate maintainer _before_ committing it (I don't think your change counts as an obvious fix). See the MAINTAINERS file. I'm assuming that you have Write After Approval (clearly you have write access) but AFAICS you've not added your name to MAINTAINERS. Anyway the patch does indeed seem to do what you say. Thanks. > Attached (references.diff) is the patch that makes gdb sense the changes in > reference values, and eliminates the address from the output. Any opinions? Doesn't appear to be attached but I'm only reading the archives. If you reply to an e-mail from me on gdb-patches could you please include me as I'm not subscribed to the mailing list (I'd rather receive two than none anyway). I think that's general accepted protocol. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob